Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded' tells the agent that the input is not used to customize the output. With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but it still omits details about side effects, whether all parameters are ignored, and the exact nature of the returned template.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds the critical behavioral caveat, making efficient use of space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that simply returns a fixed template and discards input, the description is minimally usable. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so the description should ideally specify the template's content or format more clearly. It also leaves it implicit that all nine optional parameters are effectively irrelevant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already individually documented in the input schema. The description adds a global note that the prompt is discarded, which is helpful, but it does not clarify how each of the nine parameters relates to the output.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete action and object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but no sibling description suggests this purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies input doesn't matter, but it does not explain appropriate invocation scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.